R.S.VERMA, J. - (1.) PETITIONER was a permanent Lecturer in Structural Engineering under University of Jodhpur. Services of the petitioner were terminated by the Registrar of Jodhpur University in pursuance of ordinance 327 (5) and a decision taken by the Syndicate of the University at its meeting held on 9. 10. 1982. This was done by issuing order Annexure 9 dated 23. 11. 1982. By this writ petition the petitioner assails the legality and validity of Annexure 9 and contends that termination of his service is bad in law and Annexure 9 may be quashed and respondent University be directed to reinstate him with all consequential benefits.
(2.) THE writ petition is opposed by the respondent who contends that petitioner remained willfully absent from duty for a sufficiently long period; he did not join duty inspite of having been called upon to do so; it was the petitioner who had brought the contract of service to an end; the order Ex. 9 was only a formal way of putting seal of approval on such conduct of the petitioner and hence petitioner's termination of service was lawful and valid. Here, I may briefly indicate some salient features of the case which are not in dispute. A case under Sec. 302, I. P. C. was registered against the petitioner and certatn other persons in Police Station Mahamandir, Jodhpur and the police was trying to arrest the petitioner as would be evident from Ex. 12 placed by the petitioner on record. However, the petitioner could not be arrested for quite some time. Since the petitioner was a Lecturer under the University, he submitted an application for grant of casual leave from 20. 2. 82 to 28. 2. 82. It appears that petitioner moved applications from time to time for extension of the leave but the same were not granted. The case of the petitioner is that he had been keeping ill and was at Bombay in connection with treatment and he could not attend to his duties for the period 20. 3. 82 to 12. 12. 82. It appears that in the meanwhile, University of Jodhpur issued a press release Annexure 3 asking the petitioner to resume duty within a period of 15 days otherwise proceedings would be taken against him. The petitioner appears to have sent reply to this press release through his Advocate vide Ex-4. Thereafter, the University issued another notice by way of a press release dated 13. 10. 82 whereby the petitioner was called upon to report on duty by 20. 11. 82 failing which his services shall be terminated. Petitioner again appears to have replied to this notice by letter Annexure 7 and requested the University to extend his leave further. This met a dead end and the University terminated his services by issuing order Annexure 3. The principal contention of Shri M. Mridul is that services of the petitioner could not have been terminated without taking necessary disciplinary proceedings. Since no proceedings were taken against the petitioner as per law, the order terminating services is bad. In this regard, he has drawn my attention to the provisions of Ordinance 327 (5) as also to the provisions of Appendix B issued under Ordinance 320. A brief reference to the relevant provisions would be in order at this juncture. Clause 7 and 8 of this appendix read as follows: "7. The teacher may at any time terminate his/her engagement by giving the Syndicate three months' notice in writing or by payment of an amount equal to three months' salary in lieu of the notice. Provided that the V. C. may waive the requirement of notice for its full period or part thereof. 8. The engagement of and the penalties to be imposed on the teacher shall not be determined except in the manner provided hereinafter in the Schedule-II. "
(3.) RELEVANT provisions of Schedule II are contained in clause 3 which reads as follows :- 3. Suspension and Termination : The Syndicate shall be entitled to suspend and/or determine the engagement of the teacher on grounds of grave misconduct and/or persistent negligence of duty, in the manner heseinafter provided : Procedure for imposing Suspension/termination : The Syndicate shall cause an investigation of all matters reported to it by the V. C. about the grave misconduct and/or persistent negligence of duty of the teacher whether suspended or not. The investigation shall be done by a Committee comprising of; Two members of teaching staff nominated by the Syndicate. One non-teacher member of the Senate nominated by the Syndicate. Provided that none of the persons so appointed shall be members of the Syndicate. The Syndicate shall nominate one of teacher members to be the Chairman of the Committee. (a) The V. C. shall frame definite charges on the basis of the allegations, on which the inquiry is proposed to be held. Such charges together with a statement of allegations on which they are based, shall be communicated to the teacher in writing : and he shall be required to submit to the Committee within one month, a written statement of explanation or defence, if any, he has to offer. (b) The teacher shall, for the purpose of preparing his/her defence, be permitted to inspect and take extracts from such official, as he/she may deem|fit provided that the Committee may refuse such permission for reasons recorded in writing, when such records refer to when to confidential work pertaining to examination. (c) On receipt of the written statement, or if no such statement, is received within the time specified the Committee, itself, shall on a date notified to the teacher, at least a week in advance, meet to inquire into the charges. (d) The teacher shall for the purpose of his defence, be entitled to present his/her case to the Committee in person, or be represented by a full time teacher of the University. (e) The Committee shall in the course of inquiry, consider such documentary evidence and take such oral evidence as may be considered relevant by it, and shall consider such evidence; documentary and/or oral as is deemed necessary by the teacher. The teacher or his/her representative appearing in person, shall be entitled to cross-examine and present such witnesses as are relevant for his/her defence. (f) At the conclusion of the inquiry the Committee shall prepare a report of the inquiry recording its findings on each of the charges together with reasons thereof; and submit it to the Syndicate. The record of the inquiry shall include; The charges framed against the teacher and the statement of allegations furnished to him/her under (a) above his/her written statement of defence, if any. The oral and documentary evidence taken in the course of the inquiry. Findings of the Committee, with reasons thereof. (g) If the Syndicate, having regard to the findings of the Committee is of the opinion that the engagement of the teacher should be terminated, it shall furnish to the teacher a copy of the complete report of the Committee and a statement of its own findings together with brief reasons for disagreement, if any, and given him/her a notice staling the penalty proposed to be imposed on him/her and calling upon him to submit within a specified time not less than three weeks, such representation he/she deems fit; and also on the request of the teacher give him/her representative, who should be a teacher of the University, an opportunity to represent his/her case in person before the Syndicate. (h) The termination of the engagement under these presents, shall not, save as aforesaid, be determined by the Syndicate except by a resolution passed by a vote of not less than a two-third majority of the members present at the meeting, provided that the two-thirds majority is not less than a half of the total membership of the Syndicate. (i) Notwithstanding anything stated above, the period of suspension of a teacher shall not exceed six months, at the end of which he shall be deemed to have been reinstated. During the period of suspension the teacher shall be entitled to 50% of his basic pay plus such dearness allowance as is admissible on that amount. (j) Where termination is after suspension, the termination may be from the date of suspension, if the Syndicate so directs. " Learned counsel for the respondents was at pains to contend that petitioner by remaining absent had abandoned his employment and thus unilaterally put an end to his service. The contention though plausible at first flush does not stand a close scrutiny and is devoid of substance. To abandon means 'to give up', to relinquish. It is an intentional act with a view to gi\e up one's rights. In the present case, the petitioner had been moving application for grant of leave on the ground of alleged illness. When the respondent issued Annexure 3, he immediately protested by sending notice Ex. 4. When the respondent issued press release dated 13. 10. 82, he countered the same by issuing Annexure 7. In these circumstances the contention of the respondent that petitioner should be deemed to have abandoned his employment does not appear to be justified, Actually, the contention deserves to be noticed only for the sake of rejection and is wholly without substance. I may varily concede that abandonment can both be explicit as also by implication. In the present case, there is neither ezpress abandonment of employment nor circumstances warrant an inference that petitioner had abandoned his employment. An express abandonment could have been made in accordance with clause 7 of Schedule I reproduced above. There is nothing available on record to show that there was express or implied abandonment of employment. Now, i may deal with the contention of the petitioner's learned counsel that termination of the services of the petitioner amounted to infliction of a grave and serious penalty, rather the extremest penalty and the same could not have been inflicted otherwise than by following the procedure detailed in clause 3 of the Schedule II. A bare reading of clause 3 of Schedule II goes to show that it lays down a complete code where determination of employment is sought on the grounds of grave misconduct and/or persistent negligence of duty. This clause lays down in details the various steps required to be taken before employment of a teacher can be determined. The first step in this regard is that the V. C. should report the matter to the Syndicate. Upon such report, the Syndicate is empowered to get the matter investigated into. The investigation has to be done by a Committee comprising of two members of teaching staff nominated by the Syndicate and one non-teacher member of the Senate nominated by the Syndicate. The Syndicate is required to nominate one of the teacher members to be Chairman of the Committee. ;